To think capping child tax credits at two children will plunge more families into poverty

[SoonToBeSix]

Can't link but article is in the Daily Fail. A Tory mp has proposed capping child benefit and child tax credits at two children in order to win votes.
What happens to those children whose parents circumstances change ie redundancy or there is a contraception failure?
This government is taking welfare cuts too far while continuing to let the very rich avoid paying the correct taxes.

Also, regarding bullying partners, surely taking away a financial incentive (10% increase in income for those on £60 a week) may take away some of the incentive for these partners to keep forcing women to have babies.

Bullying partners, by definition, don't share household stresses with their victim. They pile a load of crap on her (on occasionally him) and make them deal with it. The bullying partner will carry on buying PS3 or PS4 games, but their victim will simply have to make do with less.

but this isn't just about unemployed people, its about others who work who can't support more than 2 children - who should stop reproducing, in much the same way that others do once they know they can't support their family

why focus on that at all? It is becuase it adds to the spin of despicable claimants on welfare ddraining the country

focus on uncollected taxes and tory links with private corporations

focus on shoddy representatives that have to go on 'honesty training' ( todays papers)

it is such a small number of people - why bother with it at all - it is becuase it adds to the squeeze on the poor and the disgusting rhetoric that follows whilst the rich get away with me and you payin for their fucking skiddy undies

Are there actually any arguments as to why we should provide money for people to have larger than average families that don't involve MPs?

As as far as I can see, that isn't an argument - it's a "tit for tat" situation. But I'd rather people didn't play tit for tat with the money people pay in taxes.

Stgeorgia - I think you've gone off track a little.

Child benefit and child tax credits you get if claiming benefits or not. So it will affect a hell of a lot more people than just the 8% who are claiming benefits - this will affect everyone who has 3 or more children.

I think its a great idea, i think people will think about having kids much more before just doing it.

custardo - i don't think you pay for anything for our family - or if you do please explain. we have always paid more in tax than we get back. we stopped at 3 kids because we didn't have the time to look after more properly - due to both us of working FT.

Please can you explain why I should pay more tax so low earners can have as many kids as they like; and I still don't understand what relevance you arguments have about honesty training

I don't know whether this will discourage people from having children, but society always pays the cost of child poverty one way or the other.

I was answering a point made by custardo, farrow :)

Will any of the 'hard working taxpayers' on here with 3 or more children tell me what they plan to do if they suddenly find themselves without a job?

It could happen almost overnight the way things are and you can't put the third child back.

Back - that is why it is being proposed for future births.

Cause there is stgeorge. The main one being that people will continue to have children and the cycle of disdvantage will be perpetuated even more so than now.

StGeorgia because we see child poverty as undesirable? Because the future economy will require a population of healthy workers? Because I wouldn't be surprised if some of the non-MNers who support such a policy are also terrified of white Britons being bred out, and would whinge their tiny heads off if such a policy had an impact on Britons' reproductive decisions, and I really can't put up with any more racist threads on the internet

The thing is not many people can truly afford to have children these days, but we make cutbacks and plan our finances accordingly.

BUT the problem is people thinking about having extra children, factoring what extra benefits they'd get into it.

Someone on full benefits, two children, wants a third but would only afford it by getting more benefits. On what planet does this seem right to anyone?

I think we should get rid of parties.
One person best qualified for each position available - meaning they could be sacked if doing a crap job, we wouldn't be stuck with them for five long years, and no one would be put into a position handling the economy of a country when previous experience was shelf stacking and a failed maths exam

I complain bitterly about paddockgate and betsygate but then again I despise the Tories full stop

and I was answering your question to Custardo.

When you said :"custardo - then this proposal will affect very few people, so where's the problem?"

Child poverty is undesirable, yes.

So is the fact the NHS is on its knees, the fact that people are starving in the third world, I could go on.

I don't think the future economy will collapse if people limit their family sizes to two rather than three.

As for that bit crossed out - what is a "non-MNer", and why on earth am I being accused for being racist?

I'm too muddled myself now farrow so I'll take your word for it!

And of course if this came into law there'd have to be safe guards.

People made redundant for example, all their children should factor into their benefits BUT if they decided to have another whilst not working then that would be ineligible.

Do you honestly think people will limit their family size I 1000% dont think they will.

backon - we would use some of the money we have saved in case of a rainy day/uneployment. This is also a main reason why i have always worked depsite really wanting to be a SAHP. ie we have planned.

tgeorgiaandthedragon you said Back - that is why it is being proposed for future births.

But that doesn't help unless you are informed now if you will one day be poor. People have argued that it's fine for people earning enough to have as many kids as they like. So what happens to those kids if their parents are suddenly not well off?

'You can't put the third child back'

Seriously though, what would happen? If these children weren't being adequately provided for I assume they could be removed from their families ect ect ..

Is it totalitarian this word that's buzzing round in my head...

People made redundant for example, all their children should factor into their benefits BUT if they decided to have another whilst not working then that would be ineligible.

This is what I'm getting at. Do we really think that is ok? So those people will now be on benefits and claiming for all their kids. We can afford that can we?

Bear in mind that the 2 child plan is to apply to working people not just unemployed anyway.

A non-MNer is someone who is not a mumsnetter. Due to the presence of the "non-MNer" which you clocked, you are not being accused of being racist.

Although I don't know why I said "suspect". I know damn well that I've seen particular usernames on t'interwebs posting threads about both 2 child limits and claiming that there aren't enough white children.